In addition, multiple hardware vendors have “reference architecture” technical arrangements with Oracle, to try to capture some of the benefits of appliances. And IBM is constantly in partnership discussions with data warehouse specialists, notwithstanding having multiple data warehouse offerings of its own.

Positioning of these various offerings is confused. Part of the reason is the large vendors’ postures “We’re big and trustworthy, and those little upstart vendors aren’t – until the moment we partner with one of them.” Part of the reason is the small vendors’ stances of “We can do all things for all people – and by the way, 9 of the 14 customers we’ve ever had are all doing pretty much the same thing.” And part of the reason is just an industry penchant for secrecy.

To a first approximation, I think there are two sensible ways to define the tiers. In each case, we’re talking about what kinds of databases the various products are suited for.

But those are very different classification rules – many products that might be upper-tier by Criterion S are lower-tier by Criterion U, and vice-versa. For example:

Teradata’s current products are at the upper end by either criterion. Even so, a significant fraction of older Teradata installations are below 5 terabytes or even 1 terabyte in size.

More generally, Teradata emphasizes Criterion U. Hence any future low-end products will surely be positioned as lower-tier by that criterion. Beyond that, I wouldn’t be surprised if release is delayed, with the final version of those products being different than what previously leaked. E.g., they might well be designed to compete with newer vendors that are upper-tier by Criterion S.

Netezza has clearly made it into the upper tier by the Size criterion. Most of its installations are lower-tier by Criterion U, but it trumpets a few exceptions that it describes as “enterprise data warehouses” in success stories.

DATAllegro is upper tier by Criterion S — more so than any other vendor except Teradata, in that there are at least two credible stories of DATAllegro warehouses at or above the quarter-petabyte mark. Even so, DATAllegro is still mainly in the lower tier by Criterion U. I.e., the most natural use of DATAllegro technology is to build Very Big data marts.

Dataupia straddles the boundary of the tiers by Criterion S. That is, it’s meant to offload existing Oracle, SQL Server, or DB2 databases, or in some OEM cases to be a cheaper alternative. That sounds lower-tier. On the other hand, it has one 120 terabyte reference, which puts it squarely in in the upper tier. By Criterion U it’s pretty lower-tier.

ParAccel seems lower-tier by either criterion. And I’m too burned out on ParAccel’s secrecy to probe hard for exceptions.

HP Neoview is obviously meant to get to the higher end by both criteria. But like most specialty products, right now it’s further along by the Size criterion than the Usage one. Even so, it seems no further along by Criterion S than partner HP’s partner Vertica is.

Greenplum has clearly gotten to the upper tier by the Size criterion. But like most of the competition, it still seems to be in the lower tier by Usage.

Infobright is in the lower tier by either criterion. (They don’t even have an MPP offering yet.)

Kognitio KX2 is in the lower tier by either criterion. However, Kognitio aspires to move up when measured by Usage.